In the daft urban archipelago I call home, self-actualization draws energy from what's been called punitive liberalism. Well, here we go again, thanks to a random survey of 3,429 Puget Sound women in 2003-04, conducted by the Group Health Center for Health Studies, Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center; and the University of Washington. The researchers found that 92 percent reported not having suffered physical violence at the hands of their partners in the last year, while 8 percent did. However, despite this data point, other findings lead one of the "scientists" to declare in this Seattle Times article that domestic violence against women is "an enormous problem that's buried in our society", cutting across all demographic groups.
The lynchpin of the piece is that 44 percent of the women surveyed reported having suffered physical or verbal abuse from a partner or lover "at some point in their adult lives."
Physical or verbal abuse by a partner "at some point in their adult lives." That's a rather elastic parameter. Compared to physical abuse perpetrated by a partner within the last year, which as noted above, yields a very different result - albeit one downplayed greatly in the hed, lede and body of the story. It's unfortunate, but hardly coincidental, that unsupported editorializing by echo chamber sources is allowed to dominate the presentation and stand unchallenged in a purportedly objective report, with no acknowledgement whatsoever that men suffer domestic violence from women, too.
A newspaper's "commitment to diversity," if sincere, would entail that news editors insist both that reporters contact some credible mens' advocates, to add context on the highly charged issue of domestic violence, and that they present other data which could cast in a different light the report of said male-driven "epidemic" afflicting women.
Attentive Times readers once were able to glean some of that context, thanks to this 2001 op-ed by Bellevue attorney Lisa Scott. It's titled, "Gender Bias No Cure For Domestic Violence." The resulting letters to the editor were quite lively. (Free reg. req., and entirely worth it).
Now let's tackle the actual leading causes of injury for women. Take a look at the second of two pages in this table, from "Health In The United States, 2005," by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers For Disease Control, National Center For Health Statistics. It gives a very different view, by examining exactly what sorts of injuries put women in hospital emergency rooms. (If your browser somehow delivers you to the first page of the 550-page report, please scroll to Table #89, pages 328-329. Also, the link comes up faster for me on my PC running IE, versus my iMac running Safari, but it works on both).
The table shows that in the most recent two-year period reported (2002-2003), unintentional injuries such as falls, "unintenional striking by or against an object or person," motor vehicle or traffic mishaps, and cutting and piercing accounted for more than seven times as many ER visits than did intentional injuries, for women ages 18-24. For women ages 25-44, unintentional causes were responsible for more than eight times as many ER visits than intentional injuries.
Intentional injuries are not further categorized - and obviously include self-inflicted injuries. But the point is clear. In the aggregate, any sort of intentional injury of a woman, including battering by brutish, moronic males, is far less likely to send her to the hospital E.R. than are accidental causes such as falls, bumps and collisions, car and traffic accidents, and cuttings and piercings. Are these not then an even more "enormous problem that's buried in our society?"
Additionally, the chart shows intentional injuries are trending downward, from 1995-96 through 2002-03, for women in those two key age groups.
It's true that some domestic violence cases are not reported, and that all victims do not always go to emergency rooms. However, this is also true with respect to other, unintentional causes of emergency room visits covered in the report, so the general comparison must hold.
The violence against women meme is fraudulently mined for political purposes by many, including the American Institute On Domestic Violence, which claims on their web page here, under "Human Factors," that, "domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women." Perhaps they should take a look at the CDC data on injuries to women.
The proclivity to present women, minorities and the poor as victims of a patriarchial, brutish, white male corporate imperialist U.S. society is the last refuge of scoundrels who have seen the economic argument for socialism and communism eviscerated in the last half of the 20th Century. All that's left with which to advance their "revolutionary" anti-capitalist, anti-U.S. agenda of "social justice" are the "isms." These being racism, sexism, classism, and now even "heterosexism" -- also known as being callously "hetero-normative." Make no mistake: these are the last gasps of a political class which, greatly alarmed, sniffs its own extinction in the air.
True domestic violence prevention - which of course is not the interest of punitive liberals - begins with a better understanding of who is at risk, and why. In another report, the CDC notes that intimate partner violence affects men and women both, and is correlated with certain health risks (assumed by the individual) - including high-risk sexual behavior, substance abuse and unhealthy diet patterns. Other individual risk factors cited by CDC are youth, having less education, witnessing violence as a child; and for women, being Native American, Alaskan Native, or African-American.
It would follow that education and outreach should continue, but without crafty junk science, political axe-grinding and reprehensible gender bias against men.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at May 16, 2006 08:15 PM | Email ThisWell said.
Posted by: BananaLand on May 16, 2006 09:01 PMThe most important thing you said (IMHO) was that prevention isn't in the interest of punitive liberals, who are the ones who happen to control the industry.
However, I think you missed the real solution. Knowing who is at risk for it is a lot less important than knowing who is likely to commit it. Otherwise you can only stop abuse after someone gets beat up. A victim-centric focus will never solve the problem.
Now here's the part you won't like: I believe that only Christian ministry can solve the problem, with the possible exception of the Jewish religion. The reason is that early indicators of abuse usually only present in that setting. The solution is to educate ministers (and Rabbis) in what to look for and how to solve the problem before someone gets hurt.
I hope it's all right if I post a link in the comments. It's to my own blog. You can feel free to take it out if it's inappropriate. There are more links and support for your perspective on that site.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on May 16, 2006 10:33 PM8%/year is an enoromously high rate for a serious crime! Imagine if 8% of people were robbed each year (the actual rate is 0.2%/year) or if 8% of cars were stolen each year (the actual rate is 0.4%/year); we would see it as the complete collapse of civil society.
Frankly, the 8%/year rate is too high to be credible on its face. Either you are mis-quoting them, or their definition of "domestic violence" is at odds with common usage, or this study is complete bunk.
This, in no way, minimizes real abuse, both verbal and physical. But it does highlight something about the state of this aspect of law enforcement around the nation. Because of the failures of the past of returning women to truly dangerous situations, the pendulum swung the other way back in the 70s.
Now, as I explained to those back in 2004, if somebody calls the cops...somebody's going to jail. And once that charge is in the system, it can't be unwound. Forgive me, but the sources of this study (IMHO) are questionable at best.
Posted by: Danny on May 17, 2006 06:56 AMYou are very correct that the smell of death is in the air. Consistently throwing out and repeating research that has been proven false "the most frequent cause of injury....." in particular, is the hallmark of the walking dead.
The sooner we can bring truth, real numbers, and sanity to this issue, the sooner we can stop dismissing the real victims of this phenom.
This study didn't ask men about DV, even though CDC studies show DV about evenly divided amongst the sexes, as to the perp. The DV diva trained judges, persecutors (sic) and cops have been brainwashed.
I always employ a simple test when confronted with seemingly unreal stats. If 50% of the folks in Seattle are DV victims, go house by house up and down your block, and see if you can count up 50% of your neighbors who even MAY have been victims. Numbers not coming out, when checked against the reality of your 'hood? I didn't think so.
This is the classic "get a study to prove your bias", then disseminate it widely, and cast the money net to reap the rewards of your disingenuousness.
Posted by: The Geezer on May 17, 2006 08:20 AMSeriously? That is the dumbest statement I've heard in a long time.
And if I were asked the question about being abused physically or verbally EVER ... yeah, sure. I'd have to answer yes. Am I traumatized by it? No. It was a long time ago...high school actually.
Instead of playing up these phony statistics they should focus on actual victims who are in serious harms way. Cry wolf one too many times and no victims' cries will be taken seriously.
Posted by: megs on May 17, 2006 08:21 AMAt least 10 of those 92 women out of 100 who said they hadn't been abused in the past year, were abused but are too embarrassed, ashamed, or fearful to admit it, even to a stranger. I know this from my own personal experience.
Some and not just a few of those ER injuries did not result from falls or accidents in the home but were reported that way because of the same shame, fear, and embarrassment. I know that from first hand experience too.
Please don't politicize this one. And please don't become complacent and relaxed just because you are not in one of the "risk" groups. All groups are at risk. I'm sure Crystal Brame would agree with that.
This kind of discussion, which for lack of a better phrase, I'll describe as holier than thou, is exactly why I have such a difficult time voting each year. Neither party satifies my own personal requires and both overdo and underdo most of the issues.
Posted by: Rae on May 17, 2006 08:36 AMYou touched on something important. No one asked how many men have been hit by a spouse or partner or adult child.
The DV machine plays this as a "man beats woman" but if you look at some key statistics (homocide and child abuse) they paint a very different story.
Men, parents, and other relatives are quite often the victims. Second when it comes to abuse in the home, mothers abuse children 2:1 over fathers, but that accordingly is not domestic violence- it's something else to these people (even if the father also gets ash trays and coffee cups hurled at him daily).
Keep debunking the BS, because these same powergroups are the ones who line up against shared parenting legislation "because it will put women in danger."
Posted by: Andy on May 17, 2006 08:51 AMA person tends to forget that these really are industries that need to feed themselves with ever increasing taxpayer dollars. So you have to ask, will things like domestic violence ever be cured or will the threshold of what constitutes DV always be downgraded to inflate numbers.
Another thing: Does this study address DV against men or are women the only recipients of violence?
I used to worry about discimination, inadequate health care, poverty, and the environment. Now that I read conservative blogs, the only thing I worry about is terrorism and getting a good deal on an SUV and a 6,000 square foot house in Issaquah. I understand what conservatives mean when they talk about freedom all the time - freedom not to give a #%&! about much of anything.
Posted by: Thanks on May 17, 2006 10:09 AMRae, your story is consistent with my earlier comment in this thread. Things did change after your experiences. However, there is so much that isn't abuse that's labeled as such, that it makes real cases harder to truly deal with.
And FWIW, any man who verbally or physically abuses a woman or a child isn't really a man. I've dealt with them individually before, and will happily deal any who fit that category again.
I am a believer, and I understand that God claims that vengance belongs to Him. However, I want a piece of that action. You just don't treat women that way.
Posted by: Danny on May 17, 2006 10:16 AM
I used to worry about discimination, inadequate health care, poverty, and the environment.
Awww, how progressive and touchy-feely of you! By your tone you insinuate that conservatives do not, simply because...because...they disagree with you?
Not a good argument, really.
Thank you for your submission, but we regret that your posting does not meet the needs of our present audience. Please feel free to submit again, and best luck in the future.
The OP states that 8% of women report PHYSICAL ABUSE within the PAST YEAR. At least in his post, that figure is not qualified by adding verbal abuse.
Then the idiot suggests that emergency room visits are an appropriate indicator of domestic violence, including comically the statistics for "unintentional falls" as NOT domestic violence, and failing to note the obvious point that only an extremely severe beating will land anyone in an emergency room.
If he wants to complain about including subjective factors like verbal abuse, fine. But, the stat HE reported is 8% for physical abuse - an appalling statistic.
Then he quotes the study as claiming that 44 percent of women suffered physical, emotional, or verbal abuse at some time in their lives. That is an appalling statistic as well. I would presume that most of the respondents to the study would understand that ABUSE means that - not some random mean thing said in an argument. But let's say a third of them included minor slights as abuse. It's still an alarmingly high stat.
I don't necessarily agree that the term "epidemic" should be used in describing any social problem, because epidemic is a medical term of a specific definition that doesn't really apply. But the study supports the conclusion that domestic violence is a serious problem. There isn't any way a reasonable person could come to any other conclusion, particularly in light of the fact that there is no contrary data (the emergency room stats are a laughable measure).
I have no idea why this guy would be so adamant about twisting himself into knots to dispute the general conclusion of this study - that domestic violence is a serious, widespread problem. Except that conservatives will go to any lengths - outright dishonesty being the main one - to turn a blind eye to other peoples' suffering.
Which is sickening, and why I don't spend much time chatting on these blogs. This post was simply so egregious in its stupidity, denial, and insensitivity, that I couldn't let it pass.
I'll leave you to discuss this nonsensical post with more nonsensical comments, and won't bother you with reasoned analysis, since that isn't the purpose of the messageboard.
Posted by: Thanks on May 17, 2006 10:44 AMYour imbecilic Liberal Projection (tm) is showing: "Except that conservatives will go to any lengths - outright dishonesty being the main one - to turn a blind eye to other peoples' suffering."
I do hope that you will continue to (not) "...spend much time chatting on these blogs"... you're waay too dense ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 17, 2006 10:57 AMAll of those issues would be worth reviewing, if one were interested in understanding how valid the conclusions were. However, the OP doesn't do that. He presents invalid data, and tries to minimize the results presented. Why would someone do that, unless they had a legitimate concern about the study or legitimate contrary statistics?
Also, I would be interested in seeing the 44% broken down - not so much because I don't believe that verbal abuse is less of a problem, but because verbal abuse isn't a subject of direct criminalization.
alphabet soup:
I can only speculate why someone would mount a series of dumb attacks on the validity of a study on domestic violence, instead of focusing on what might be actual weaknesses in the methodology. My guess is that for some reason he wants to minimize the problem. My observation is that many, many conservatives don't care much to hear about other peoples' problems, because it may lead to them parting with their precious dollars. You may think this is a blind prejudice on my part, but I could link easily to a thousand examples of this on the net. Maybe he has difference motivations. I think my guess is pretty good, but it's only a guess.
And, I won't spend any more time here (thankfully for us both) because no matter what happens, you won't debate honestly. I stated my clear objections to the OP. And I stated a conclusion that was my own. You choose only to address my supposed bias from my conclusion, not to address the points raised. I'm glad to acknowledge that I have views, but it is useless to discuss the point without discussing the substance of what I posted, as well as any bias I (you, I'm sure, are preternaturally free of bias) I'm sure that would continue endlessly, and I have no time for it.
Thanks,
Thanks.
Posted by: Thanks on May 17, 2006 11:15 AMLara, did you mean 'educate' or 'indoctrinate'? The prevention you're talking about is mostly feminist propaganda. It won't change a thing.
Want proof? It hasn't. Most of it is based on the Duluth model, also known as the 'blame and shame game' which emphasizes the idea that a 'patriarchal society' is the cause of abuse.
In my personal experience it's not conservatives who don't want to help, it's liberals who try to prevent them from helping. I tried to get involved in supporting DV shelters in the 90s and couldn't get through the door because I was a Christian (and a male). Liberals recite their memes against conservatives and Christians and people start to believe them. Conservatives and Christians have been caring and showing it longer and stronger than liberals have. And we're showing it again by not exploiting victims to support our income stream from tax dollars.
Liberals have had control of this issue for three decades and they haven't solved the problem. Their victim-centric approach won't stop abuse, it will only create a steady flow of income for their industry by keeping the beds in shelters filled. If liberals really cared they'd find ways to actually prevent abuse.
They could start moving in that direction by funding and continuing the Spouse Assault Replication Program (SARP) that calls into question whether mandatory arrest and prosecution do anything to prevent further abuse. There were an additional five studies that showed, among other things, that mandatory arrest does little to prevent further abuse, particularly in minority communities (especially blacks). Yet it's a policy that is seldom questioned in DV circles. And still, no one wants to continue the research. Why is that? Maybe someone should tell Jesse Jackson that blacks are being unfairly targeted by mandatory arrest policies. Then maybe something would change.
Another thing that could be done is to restore the constitutional rights of men who are accused of abuse. What happened to due process? Since when is it acceptable to take away someone's constitutional rights because someone else complains about them? In my opinion this is just another example of victims being exploited. For those cases where a woman needs a protection order they should get it. But when false accusations of abuse are used as a tool in a divorce settlement or custody case it's nothing more than abuse. Abuse that's sanctioned and enabled by the State.
It's becoming clear that the domestic violence industry is becoming the very thing they claim to oppose. They are exploiting victims for their own personal gain.
Most importantly, what needs to happen (IMHO) is that we need to start focusing on the real causes of abuse. This can only happen when we put aside the feminist created ideas that are purveyed in discussions about the issue. Memes about patriarchy and control have to be re-examined (most people try to control others because they want something from them, control is a tool not a goal, if you want to solve the problem, examine the real goals).
Posted by: Republican (by default) on May 17, 2006 01:28 PMMuch is said about how the police did not care before the current DV laws were enacted. I don't know that this is necessarily the case. There were many police officers assaulted and/or killed, by the women victim, when the officers started to take away the brute who the wives told the officers to take away in the first place. In other words, "Protect me, and then I will try to kill you for protecting me."
I also think it is interesting that "society" is blamed for allowing DV to flourish, when "society", many times, tried to warn the woman about the guy. In the beginning, the woman says it is none of “societies” business. Later on, it is “societies” fault.
Certainly, DV is a problem that needs to be addressed. I just tend to get a little skeptical when fingers point in one direction. Just look at the “Super Bowl Sunday” fairy tale that was thrown around a few years ago. When a problem becomes an industry – and people start making money from it, the definition of the problem changes to show that the problem is getting worse – so the gravy train keeps on rolling.
... of course not! The religion of gender feminism is never supposed to be questioned. If you do, you get accused of wanting "go back to men beating their women," as if that was ever the norm. (hint: it has never been the norm in western society). Or, you get the emotionally baiting response, pointing to an anecdotal horrid case of abuse, in order to try to shut you up.
Regarding Thanks - you seem fixated on the 8% number. The survey completely and deliberately ignored men. All other surveys that include men find that men report just slightly less abuse than women do. And, that's without adjusting for the fact that men have not been conditioned to embrace victimhood and are thus much less likely to report themselves as victims.
Moreoever, I've found no evidence that they attempted in this survey to isolate experiencing uni-directional abuse from mutual abuse. Surveys that are both scientific (which usually means conducted by research psychologists that are far, far away from the Women Studies department) and that look at mutual vs. unidirectional find that most abuse is mutual.
So, that 8% that you are concerned about contains a majority of mutual abuse. (The CDC is one of the few hold-outs, by the way, in support of genuine science and statistical worthiness).
It's usually part of the human drama mixed with one or more of alcohol, drugs, some major stressors such as poverty, and the other things Matt cited from the CDC.
Researchers that are not ideologically inspired keep finding this over and over again. Yet, money, attention, political gain, and a stubborn resistance to the truth seem to get in the way. When the truth gets a little too close to the surface, the politically correct crowd works hard to drive the messenger out of his or her position. (see Harvard).
Really, I'm surprised that so many Democrats that care primarily about things other than feminist ideology (yes, I think there are still some Democrats like that) let this DV ca ca slide. It's pretty easy for the average person to see through it, once that person takes a look just slightly deeper than the media is willing to cover. If a party is willing to go along with these DV falsehoods, why are we to believe any of the other so-called scientific findings that drive Democratic politics, such as global warming?
In the end, it just chases people out of your party. People who would otherwise care about labor issues, be sympathetic to issues of race, even environmental issues, look at this nonsense - and the severe and forced social reconstructionist effort it supports - and walk away.
Frankly, I don't know if global warming exists or not. But, every time I look into the dramatic reports supporting Democratic positions, I find garbage. This DV silliness happens to be one I looked into. It's so outrageously inspired by money, ideology, and just pure hate on the feminist front, that it makes me wonder if I can believe any of the other stuff.
Let's take Nickels' obsession with global warming. Nickels seems genuinly convinced of global warming, just like many of the true believers in the DV establishment are convinced that their positions. But, Nickels is also part of the DV true believers. Since that is the case, and the data is so obviously corrupted, it seems hardly worth it to spend time researching global warming to see if I can believe THAT is real. Nickels' politically correct affiliation with DV drama ruins his credibility on global warming.
Posted by: BananaLand on May 17, 2006 07:45 PMMoney thrown at the problem that's directed by the whims of special interest groups (in this case feminists and lawyers) isn't going to solve anything. The solution can only come by changing the values of those who perpetrate the abuse. That is not something the government (or lawyers or feminists) can do.
As always, self-seeking wolves are exploiting the compassions of real people by twisting the facts. Victims will remain exploited victims until these people are exposed. It's the truth that change it.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on May 17, 2006 08:40 PMNope, I'm not suggesting that domestic violence does not exist.
I AM suggesting that:
1) Domestic discord, which often involves hurt feelings, is not the same thing as domestic violence.
2) Most genuine physical abuse is mutual and involves other factors that contribute to people being unstable or an unstable environment.
3) There is a small percentage (e.g., much, much less than 8%) of genuine domestic terror. Men and women are equally likely to perpetrate it.
#3 is what the DV industry should be focused on. Instead, the issue got hijacked in large part by gender feminist who use it to futher their agenda.
Plenty of other genuinely good people with good intentions are involved in trying to help too, and don't see through the smoke screen. They are not aware of the blatant disregard for the Constitution of federal, state, and local. They are not aware of how risky it is for all sorts of Constitutional rights and protections we take for granted when basic provisions like "equal protection" and "due process" are cleverly ignored by government gone wild. They are not aware of the abuse of DV implements, such as no-contact orders, in family courts and how these are used to separate fathers from children. I could go on.
I'm just doing my small part in trying to raise awareness. I think history has shown that it's generally a bad idea to let fanatics control anything in government. But, that's what's happening here.
Posted by: BananaLand on May 17, 2006 09:11 PMPosted by: Olin on May 19, 2006 01:35 PM
The easiest thing to argue in any study is what was left out.
The study states how many women say they are abused. You can't argue with the opinions of the women interviewed. Or maybe we can? We could have the PI on the study call each person back who seemed a bit dramatic in their rankings and explain to them that they really weren't abused, er,... that they were, it's just that the guy next door was abused too and his abuse negates hers.
I think this study is an excellent eye-opener.
Posted by: all things relative on May 23, 2006 03:08 PM